Acceptable boundaries?

[angela146]

... When it's a 35 year old and 17 year old then you get into power and experience asymmetries that make the situation almost inherently exploitative, and thus immoral.

I have to disagree with this one based on a number of couples that i know who have been married a long time and who are each separated in age by 15+ years.

I wish I could elaborate but I can't figure out how to talk about them without revealing identities.

 

[Pure]

the debate goes on...

speaking unofficially, of course,

let's start with Ogg

O: //There are two distinct subjects here:

1. What is allowed in Literotica. We should all follow the rules set by the owners of this site.

2. What is permissible in fiction. Anything is permissible no matter how disgusting, depraved, unhuman or vile the subject matter may be as long as it is fiction. There are many books in the public domain and many more still in copyright that cover revolting behaviour either as detective fiction, as fantasy or as horror.//

I, pure, respond: There is a great deal of validity to Ogg's point. He contrasts Literotica rules with what fiction writers might choose to write and what rules, if any, govern whether their works get disseminated, above board.

Here, he says, we follow Lit. rules. IMO, that's how it should be.

I think the larger issue is the demands for social control and the demands of art. That is not going to go away.

Let's look at the unregenerate Hillmaniac, Sex and Death,

Sex and Death said,
By "deeper" I do not mean "better." I do not take "depth" as a value judgement, but, rather as a qualitative descriptor. The perspective I draw on for the meaning of "depth" is primarily from depth psychology (see this for explanation: http://www.tearsofllorona.com/depth.html ). It is a body of work within psychology that I personally value more than other bodies of work in psychology such as cognitive behavioral, rational emotive or developmental. Within depth psychology, I gravitate most strongly toward acrhetypal psychology (also called imaginal psychology) which is a body of work originated by psychologist James Hillman and his colleagues.

I have known cognitive behavioral pracitioners, and even strict behavioralists, who have a quality of depth of soul, which they would of course deny, that infuses their work and deepens their mechanistic method into fine art and heart. Depth, the way I see it, isn't a quality of some ideologies and not others. Rather, it is a quality that is brought to any given perspective by the practitioner. Even more, depth is not only a quality, but is a way or style of perpsective or of seeing that sees through thoughts, feelings and behaviors into their underlying dynamics.

I do feel the schools of psychology to which I refer are deeper, because depth is a quality that they directly consider, cultivate and value. The main focus of them is not behavioral change, the cure of mental illness, nor the psychopharmacological comfort of individuals within our social context. The main focus of depth psychology is to cultivate and be guided by "soul," which is the English word for "psyche."

I, pure, respond: Let's start at the end, with a point that gets stressed insufficiently, though others in the related threads have mentioned it. "Depth psychology" is after soul cultivation. In that sense it has affinities to art.

It does not aim to cure (as in 'cure the pedophile') nor at social control. I know of no evidence that it could 'cure' the pedophile or any other obsessed personality. There is ample evidence that Freud, for instance, did not, in the social sense, "cure" many of his patients, e.g., the wolf man.

From an artistic pov, I laud Sex and Death and his proposals.

Yet we come back to the issue of social control. It's fine to say, "archetypes" live us, and that the pedophile, like Eichmann is being so lived. But being social persons, control is an issue. Even for professed 'libertarians' and 'minimum government' people. So the antisocial folks--obsessives and impulsives-- will have to be 'controlled', that is 'cured' or locked up or destroyed. And as I think SD says, there is no cure, including by 'depth psychology' so...

Another factor that has not been mentioned is that no human society has simply used the minimum of 'social control.' If indeed the US, under its liberal SC did license the writing of almost anything, over the past decades, that is the exception, as with Denmark, and a few other places. People are going to control what offends them; there are going to be rules that go beyond antisociality to 'disgusting behavior' or 'offensive writing.' Here in Canada there was a law against 'exhibiting a disgusting object.' So the artist displayed some used Tampaxes in a show, and got arrested. That's how it goes when you tweak the public's nose.

I think there is something to be said for Shang's 'habits of mind' approach. Possibly s/he is calling for some social controls of either antisocial or merely merely 'offensive' depictions on grounds they lead to behavior in those who obsess over them [for example controls of disseminating adult 'seducing' 5-year-old sex stories.]

That link has not been empirically demonstrated, in the sense I will now define.

We come to the position of Selena. Fantasy is fantasy. It cannot be controlled and it doesn't *necessarily* lead anywhere, that is to antisocial acts. I must say that this is an appealing position with which I generally agree. As least as an extremely smalltime 'artist' (writer).

Shang says that obsessing lead to acting, and probably that's often the case. Yet there's no way to control 'obsessing.' Who is going to see "M for murder" and find it disturbing, and who is going to see it a hundred times, jerking off to it. We cannot know.

Hence, even granting Shang's point, there is no way to control the phenomenon, except at an earlier point--assuming Shang wants to control it. You have to limit access to the material. Have a 'special shelf' in the library, or, in Catholic seminaries, you get the Bishops permission to read and study Sade. (How well this works, is subject to debate: the books on the 'special shelf' keep disappearing at my library-- probably snagged by obsessors for their evil purposes!)

But let's go back to facts: we do know that, for instance, serial killers spent a lot of time obsessing, then doing. Reading recently about the BTK killer, I learn he obsessed a lot, and was killing animals as a young person. It may be almost impossible to control this kind of person, as witness his not being found for decades; indeed he would have never been found, but for his re-activation. One can try to keep track of small animals in one's neighborhood and make sure they don't disappear, and if they do, find the culprits and get them to therapy. In theory.

But returning to the facts that would possibly justify social controls of expression: We don't know the story in the other direction. We don't know that those who fantasize a lot become antisocial; we know the reverse point--those who become antisocial fantasized a lot.

This is like the old chestnut: Most heroin addicts started with pot smoking. True. But the point in the other direction is false.

So that bring me personally, and unofficially back close to Selena's position; allow fantasies to be written and disseminated, which is close to the US federal policy until rather recently when the obscentity folks under Ashcroft are getting going.

To repeat, I do allow for 'social controls' as part of society. Those are in the criminal codes and refer to behavior and 'intent.' Criminal codes cannot address thoughts. They can try to address precursors of thought, e.g. 'obscene' or pornographic depictions, and "possession' of them. But the fact is that apparently these don't, in a majority of cases, lead to one's doing the actions depicted, beyond simple fucking.

So factually the 'social control' persons don't have much of a case, *even in the case of violent material*, as witness the case of Japans violent and sexually violent comics. We *don't* know that those who obsess with these things--even if we could identify them (count the sales of comics to individuals?)-- are going to carry out antisocial acts.

One might suspect it, but the proof isn't there so far, and we do know that persons like Stephen King and Edgar Allen have not become menaces to society. Indeed the Marquis himself, became somewhat of a danger to prostitutes, in whipping them (as they agreed, he said). Yet there is no evidence he went around killing virgins by the dozens as his tales depict. Baudelaire wrote 'flowers of evil' and did hang out with prostitutes, and smoke dope, etc. But afaik, he didn't ever become and antisocial menace.

Following Serling, in a way, I think one cant predict the uses of one's writing. And the 'costs' of trying to do so are enormous. Do we 'watch' people reading horror material? Put cameras in their homes and bedrooms. Or simply stop the (over the counter) sale of violent or sexual material and restrain thousands of people to try to control the one sick bastard.

None of these 'civil liberties' tendencies, of course, bear on the issue of Literotica rules, which, as I've said, one has to respect if one wants to hang around this 'private property' (website).

 

[Selena_Kitt]

*ripping duct tape off my mouth*

ARGH!


Is this what you do at four in the morning, Pure?

It does not aim to cure (as in 'cure the pedophile') nor at social control.

It aims at integration. Truly, we know only about 10% of who we really are. Our psyches (souls) are 90% in shadow, even to ourselves. What depth psychology does that none other attempts to do is shine a light on the things in the dark. Bringing them into the light relieves them of their power over us. If the BTK killer had done some work on his mother issues, who knows what might have happened? I'm kidding... the other part of depth psychology is that it is on the fringes (and will always be, unless our world turns upside down) because it isn't for everyone. Not everyone is ready to look into those dark places in themselves.

So the antisocial folks--obsessives and impulsives-- will have to be 'controlled', that is 'cured' or locked up or destroyed. And as I think SD says, there is no cure, including by 'depth psychology' so...

In our culture, we have a bio-medical model of ourselves and the world, so we focus on things like "cure." It's really a moot point, from a different perspective. Cure is about making something "go away." Right now, our "cure" for pedophiles is to put them in jail or kill them. That's what we know "works." Something like the integrative approach of depth psychology hasn't been tested en masse, nor will it be. In our current worldview, that would be "crazy." From my world view, what we are doing now is crazy. Instead of giving pedophiles (or anyone with a perceived "mental illness") a way through, we are stopping them where they are and essentially chopping off their heads. I always imagine the Queen of Hearts from Alice... this is what jail does, the death penalty does, medication, even… it all seeks control under the guise of a “cure.” There have been people who have been “cured” of such things… pedophilia, schizophrenia, even something as socially "benign" and "harmless" (note the quotes there) as depression… but it takes the path of integration, not the path of arresting the psyche and putting it in shackles. The psyche and fantasy aren't the enemy... literalization of fantasy is the problem. There is no way to stop literalizing fantasy except by more fully developing that inner world of psyche...and that includes fantasy. It seems paradoxical--why would we "let" a pedophile fantasize?--but it's because his inner world is so narrow that all he can see inside are his obsessive fantasies. Expand his inner world, and you will set him free and achieve the "social control" and "cure" you were looking for.

Here in Canada there was a law against 'exhibiting a disgusting object.' So the artist displayed some used Tampaxes in a show, and got arrested. That's how it goes when you tweak the public's nose.

Ha, this goes back to the “art” thread, too… These are things that live in shadow. “Disgusting objects.” Feh! What if it had been used condoms, I wonder? Would that have been disgusting? Or just “cool?” I could go off on a tangent on this one, for sure… won’t, but I could…

I think there is something to be said for Shang's 'habits of mind' approach. Possibly he is calling for some social controls of either antisocial or merely 'offensive' depictions on grounds they lead to behavior in those who obsess over them.

I’d like to know if he is or isn’t, from Shang himself. I doubt he was advocating for censorship… I could be wrong. My interpretation is that he was simply saying the pedophiles obsess… which is true. And that it isn’t good for pedophiles to obsess. Which is also true.

My argument comes in at that point. How do you get a pedophile to stop obsessing? Do you take away all his obsessive objects? It won’t work. Why? Because it’s not about the thing… this is a finger and the moon argument. The obsessive object is symptomatic, and its particular form matters in that particular psyche (an alcoholic is obsessive about beer, a sugar addict obsessive about donuts… it’s not about the thing they are “addicted” to, though) but only because it is the way in and the way through for that particular individual's psyche. It’s a sigul, it points to something in the psyche that needs to be brought from the shadow into the light.

That’s why, if you put a pedophile in jail, he will still be a pedophile.

We come to the position of Selena. Fantasy is fantasy. It cannot be controlled and it doesn't *necessarily* lead anywhere, that is to antisocial acts. I must say that this is an appealing position with which I generally agree. As least as an extremely smalltime 'artist' (writer).

Yes, this is my position… fantasy is fantasy. I have known people who have age-fantasies (pre-teen, young teen) fantasies who do not and would never act them out. Are you a pedophile because you fantasize about it? The problem comes in the literalization of the fantasy itself. There are people in the world who would say, “Just because you’re thinking about it, you’re a sick fuck!” and there are people who would go further and say, “You should be locked away for that!”… very 1984…

What actually literalizes fantasy is the inability to expand the inner world of psyche… instead, it gets brought out and acted in the outer world.

To that end, I say fantasy is good, healthy and necessary.

You have to limit access to the material. Have a 'special shelf' in the library, or, in Catholic seminaries, you get the Bishops permission to read and study Sade. (How well this works, is subject to debate: the books on the 'special shelf' keep disappearing at my library-- probably snagged by obsessors for their evil purposes!)

more indication that the more you suppress something, the more interesting it becomes... the same works in our inner landscape as it does in the outer world (they are reflections of one another… very Looking Glass, really…) The more you suppress something in your psyche, the more power you will give it.

So that bring me personally, and unofficially back close to Selena's position; allow fantasies to be written and disseminated, which is close to the US federal policy until rather recently when the obscentity folks under Ashcroft are getting going.

we got to the same place, but took very different routes, I think…

 

[Sex and Death]

*ripping duct tape off my mouth*

ARGH! …

Young lady, I didn't give you permisison to do that. When I get home you'll be spinning the Consequence Wheel.

 

[rgraham666]

Young lady, I didn't give you permisison to do that. When I get home you'll be spinning the Consequence Wheel.

Somebody's going to have fun tonight.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Somebody's going to have fun tonight.

*chuckle*

I'm such a bad, bad, naughty, naughty girl...

 

[geronimo_appleby]

*ripping duct tape off my mouth*

erm.. what are you doing with duct tape on your mouth? and if it's for BDSM purposes, why are your hands free to rip the aforementioned duct tape. you tart.

 

[minsue]

I have to disagree with this one based on a number of couples that i know who have been married a long time and who are each separated in age by 15+ years.

I wish I could elaborate but I can't figure out how to talk about them without revealing identities.

An age separation alone certainly doesn't necessarily set up the relationship to be exploitative and asymmetrical, assuming both parties are adults. (at least I sincerely hope not! ) By adult, I don't necessarily mean over the age of 18, mind you. I mean emotionally and intellectually adult. Most 20 year olds I've known, including myself when I was that age, could not have had an equal relationship with someone 15+ years senior.

In the example given, I'd have to agree with Roxanne that most relationships with a large age difference, when one party is still for all intents and purposes a child, run a risk of exploitation and abuse. I'm not saying that is necssarily the case, but the levels of power in the relationship would be quite lopsided and the risk of abuse inherent. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Lolita could never be written today. No publisher would touch it.

(damnit, putting duct tape over the glue)

You honestly believe that? I actually feel the exact opposite on that issue. I think such novels are more likely to achieve publication, but much less likely to acquire notice due to their content.

As for the topic at hand...

I apologize is someone already said this, since I only read a few posts beyond SelenaKittyn's post above.

Personally, I think boundaries are made for specific purposes, and that those purposes should be considered before those barriers are crossed. I don't believe that writing a character being raped or a child being abused should not be written, assuming the purpose of the characters going through those experiences are doing so with purpose besides working the reader closer to masturbatory bliss. Should this be done with the intent of being erotic, I think it's done in poor taste, with misguided reasoning, for misguided people. I understand that some people fantasize about being raped, so perhaps that issue should be held separate from the other.

Basically, I believe that the acts cannot be portrayed responsibly if they are intended to get the reader off. If they are conflicts taken by the characters, projected and presented that way, for instance, a character who was abused as a child learning to deal with what has occurred might be a very good story, and detailing that abuse can be a very effective way for the writer to bring the reader closer to the experiences the character has gone through and therefore closer to the character. The intent being to get the reader off... Well, that's generally pretty fucked up. Just my opinion.

Q_C

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You honestly believe that? I actually feel the exact opposite on that issue. I think such novels are more likely to achieve publication, but much less likely to acquire notice due to their content.

I do believe that... the cult of fear and phobia around underage sex is pervasive in our culture... publishers would look at Lolita nowadays and cringe... I don't think they would publish it, no... not a mainstream publishing house...

it's not ground-breaking anymore... but it's not something blase either... look at the fervor this topic has caused just on Lit alone...

 

[minsue]

I do believe that... the cult of fear and phobia around underage sex is pervasive in our culture... publishers would look at Lolita nowadays and cringe... I don't think they would publish it, no... not a mainstream publishing house...

it's not ground-breaking anymore... but it's not something blase either... look at the fervor this topic has caused just on Lit alone...

I suppose it would depend on your take on Lolita, Selena. If you view it as a love story, you're probably right that it wouldn't be published by any of the major publishing houses.

There are plenty of novels being published every year which involve underage sex, rape, abuse, and all sorts of uncomfortable (for the average person) subjects.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I do believe that... the cult of fear and phobia around underage sex is pervasive in our culture... publishers would look at Lolita nowadays and cringe... I don't think they would publish it, no... not a mainstream publishing house...

it's not ground-breaking anymore... but it's not something blase either... look at the fervor this topic has caused just on Lit alone...

Yep. Fervor, but that fervor was created and exists in an enclosed community (not enclosed as in non-accepting of others of course, but... well, you know what I mean) where many of the people here are more than familiar with one another, and therefore are more than comfortable enough to have such conversations. However, a novel published about abortion may cause the same fervor (possibly more actually) in such a community, but until we're made aware of the novel's existence...

Those novels (those containing strong references to abortion) are published all the time. Hell, if you want abuse, even child abuse, read Delores Claiborne, or Rose Madder, by Stephen King. Are they sexually glorifying? No. But correct me if I'm wrong (since I've only seen the movie and haven't yet read the book--therefore, perhaps I am very wrong) but didn't the story end with Humbert still longing for her, but her wanting nothing to do with him? Absolutely nothing, sort of absolving the eroticism created by the doctor?

I'll have to check my local library and see if I can get a copy.

Q_C

 

[Selena_Kitt]

But correct me if I'm wrong (since I've only seen the movie and haven't yet read the book--therefore, perhaps I am very wrong) but didn't the story end with Humbert still longing for her, but her wanting nothing to do with him? Absolutely nothing, sort of absolving the eroticism created by the doctor?

yes and no... yes it ends that way... but as Minsue says, it could EASILY be read as a love story... with a very sympathetic protagonist...

I could be wrong, maybe a publisher would jump all over it... *shrug*

 

[minsue]

yes and no... yes it ends that way... but as Minsue says, it could EASILY be read as a love story... with a very sympathetic protagonist...

I could be wrong, maybe a publisher would jump all over it... *shrug*

Erm, I'm not quite comfortable with the way you've worded that, "As Minsue says". I don't want it to be mistaken that I view Lolita as a love story, or that I find Humbert sympathetic, because I don't. I was only meaning to point out that, if looked at as a love story, you were probably right that it wouldn't be published.

Carry on.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Erm, I'm not quite comfortable with the way you've worded that, "As Minsue says". I don't want it to be mistaken that I view Lolita as a love story, or that I find Humbert sympathetic, because I don't. I was only meaning to point out that, if looked at as a love story, you were probably right that it wouldn't be published.

Carry on.

didn't mean to insinuate that you did... hence the "could be"...